4 ms·

It is quite humorous that people have taken up a philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible, when the world devised by its ad

It is quite humorous that people have taken up a philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible, when the world devised by its adherents has been overthrown countless times over by people who did not believe that, resulting in the more just and equitable one we now inhabit.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This is an excellent point that people seem to constantly ignore. Stoicism, for all its helpful disciplines, has been countered by a reality where changes have taken place by people who dared to think otherwise and hold on to romantic ideals.
- ochronus 3y ago
  Some would say the 4 stoic virtues are romantic ideals ;)
bicepjai 3y ago
Can you provide an example ?
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Christianity’s impact on the Roman Empire, quite famously and for starters.
  - cjohnson318 3y ago
    Did Christianity usher in a more just and equitable world? After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, Europe trudged through the middle ages until the Renaissance in the 15th century.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Yes, by eroding the archaic notions of heroism and virtue, premised on destruction of the weak and the other. See Rene Girard.
      - cjohnson318 3y ago
        I think that millions of non-Christians over the centuries would have a different perspective than Rene Girard.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Your comment was about the impact of Christianity on the Roman Empire and in Europe, so that’s irrelevant, but Girard’s argument is also not about individual adherence to the ideology. Instead, it’s about the destruction of archaic virtue, premised on scapegoating and mythologized violence, as a result of Christianity. Modernity was premised on this, as identified by Nietzsche and others.
        cjohnson318 3y ago
        Oh sure, the experience of millions of non-Christians is irrelevant, of course. Is Girard saying that Christianity destroyed scapegoating and mythologized violence? Or simply archaic virtue? Because I can think of loads of scapegoating all over the Eurasian landmass, from 300 years of the Spanish Inquisition, to pogroms ordered by the Tsars, the Bolsheviks, the Cossacks, and the White Army.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Since you’re arguing from a very dishonest place and intentionally misrepresenting what I said, I really shouldn’t bother engaging with you, but: Despite his later religious appeals, Girard’s original argument is more anthropological with regard to the emergence of various monotheistic traditions. Archaic virtues and religions were about hiding the nature of sacrilized violence, specifically the fact that the victim/scapegoat had no real power to dispel whatever crisis predicated their victimization. This becomes fully exposed for the first time in the Christian mythos, but had orthodox and heterodox precedents in almost every world religion,and especially Judaism, as Girard’s work itself engages with. Overtime, the effect of this mythos is to undermine the efficacy of sacrificial logics, such that we now, in modern society, more often than not, identify with the victims vs. the victimizers. This is a complete inversion of the archaic social order, as Nietzsche railed against in his notion of Dionysus vs. the Crucified. The impact of the Christian mythos obviously also extends into other world religions (e.g. Islam and its two billion adherents, where the Christ figure also holds special status) as well as into various secular moral philosophies that derive their origins from Abrahamic traditions.
ardaoweo 3y ago
That more just and equitable world is mainly an illusion created by cheap fossil fuels. Soon enough it will collapse, and there's not much ordinary people can do about it. Stoicism can at least help with accepting the inevitable.
- cjohnson318 3y ago
  Cheap fossil fuels AND an economic environment where developing countries have a median standard of living an order of magnitude lower than developed countries. If 80% of the world lived in roughly the same tax bracket, then a pair of wool socks would be like $100, not $10.
kieloo 3y ago
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand stoicism. The idea is not to be passive but to understand the difference between what is and isn’t in our control. One of Marcus Aurelius’ most famous quotes actually encourages action: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.” - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  This is itself a meaningless appeal that can be used to justify any behavior, absent a concrete example or definition of the good.
  - digging 3y ago
    Yes, obviously. It's meant to be consumed in context of knowing what good is. If you're lacking that context, don't use that single quote to guide your life choices.
  - weatherlight 3y ago
    ..or you could read Meditations where Aurelius does explain what it is to be a good man.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      I’ve read it and found it to be sanctimonious apologia for the exercise of violent domination. Epictetus is more tolerable. The better example is the Buddhist tradition, where a figure of comparable authority to Aurelius abandoned power in pursuit of monasticism and universal respect for all life.
somenameforme 3y ago
That is not at all what Stoicism is about. I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. And that the greatest virtue in life is to be gained by living a life of ethics. There were metaphysical aspects to Stoicism as well, but I think few people adopt those now a days, and that's neither here nor there anyhow. A couple of Stoics involved in politics you may be interested in are Cato the Younger [1] and, of course, Marcus Aurelius. [2] Suffice to say that if our political class today was comprised of men with even a fraction of either of these men's character, the world would be an exponentially better place for everybody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  > I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. Which is why it was upheld by people administering the slave empires, and rejected by those who ultimately opposed and overthrew them. It justifies existing hierarchies and domination as natural vs. arising from systems which can be fundamentally changed.
  - weatherlight 3y ago
    I think people are getting hung up on the wrong things.. stoicism advocates for either actually changing/controlling the thing, or not worrying about it. More often than not, people are caught in the in-between where the spend absurd amount of time worrying about a specific problem but are unwilling/unable to take the action to resolve that issue. The other side of that is that sometimes things happen to you for which you have no control. An inoperable brain tumor, the weight of the death of a friend, your company going under, etc. in those moments, all you can ask for is to handle those situations with grace, virtue, and reason. And how you handle those situations (those uncontrollable ones) is completely on you. (Anecdotally, a friend of mine, who identifies as an adherent to stoic philosophy just organized his workplace and lead the unionization effort! He felt like he had the tools and power to help organize and make the changes in his work place! we told him that it was impossible/improbable and he's proved us all wrong.) Be the change you want to see in the world.
weatherlight 3y ago
> philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible. I think this is a misunderstanding. Stoicism isn't about passivity or resignation but rather about proactive engagement with the world, guided by virtue and rationality. If you have the means to change or shape the world, then do so...If you have the means to inspire people to change the world, then by god, do so.... There's plenty of examples throughout history of just that. for example, Cato the Younger, a Stoic, vehemently opposed Caesar believing him to be a a threat to the then fragile Roman Republic. He stood against Caesar's rise to power, even to the point of his tragic end, and became a bit of a martyr in that regard. Seneca the Younger, advised Emperor Nero (infamous madman) and tried to moderate Nero's rule with Stoic principles. Somewhat unsuccessfully, but he did try. A more modern example in George Washington, whose infamous demeanor was key in guiding the United States during its formative years, including the U.S. Revolutionary War and as the First President of that fledgling republic. Stoicism isn't a philosophy of resignation, Stoicism should be seen as a framework to navigate life's complexities with wisdom, reason, and virtue.

tsunamifury 3y ago

This is an excellent point that people seem to constantly ignore. Stoicism, for all its helpful disciplines, has been countered by a reality where changes have taken place by people who dared to think otherwise and hold on to romantic ideals.

ochronus 3y ago
Some would say the 4 stoic virtues are romantic ideals ;)

bicepjai 3y ago

Can you provide an example ?

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Christianity’s impact on the Roman Empire, quite famously and for starters.
- cjohnson318 3y ago
  Did Christianity usher in a more just and equitable world? After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, Europe trudged through the middle ages until the Renaissance in the 15th century.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Yes, by eroding the archaic notions of heroism and virtue, premised on destruction of the weak and the other. See Rene Girard.
    - cjohnson318 3y ago
      I think that millions of non-Christians over the centuries would have a different perspective than Rene Girard.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Your comment was about the impact of Christianity on the Roman Empire and in Europe, so that’s irrelevant, but Girard’s argument is also not about individual adherence to the ideology. Instead, it’s about the destruction of archaic virtue, premised on scapegoating and mythologized violence, as a result of Christianity. Modernity was premised on this, as identified by Nietzsche and others.
        cjohnson318 3y ago
        Oh sure, the experience of millions of non-Christians is irrelevant, of course. Is Girard saying that Christianity destroyed scapegoating and mythologized violence? Or simply archaic virtue? Because I can think of loads of scapegoating all over the Eurasian landmass, from 300 years of the Spanish Inquisition, to pogroms ordered by the Tsars, the Bolsheviks, the Cossacks, and the White Army.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Since you’re arguing from a very dishonest place and intentionally misrepresenting what I said, I really shouldn’t bother engaging with you, but: Despite his later religious appeals, Girard’s original argument is more anthropological with regard to the emergence of various monotheistic traditions. Archaic virtues and religions were about hiding the nature of sacrilized violence, specifically the fact that the victim/scapegoat had no real power to dispel whatever crisis predicated their victimization. This becomes fully exposed for the first time in the Christian mythos, but had orthodox and heterodox precedents in almost every world religion,and especially Judaism, as Girard’s work itself engages with. Overtime, the effect of this mythos is to undermine the efficacy of sacrificial logics, such that we now, in modern society, more often than not, identify with the victims vs. the victimizers. This is a complete inversion of the archaic social order, as Nietzsche railed against in his notion of Dionysus vs. the Crucified. The impact of the Christian mythos obviously also extends into other world religions (e.g. Islam and its two billion adherents, where the Christ figure also holds special status) as well as into various secular moral philosophies that derive their origins from Abrahamic traditions.

ardaoweo 3y ago

That more just and equitable world is mainly an illusion created by cheap fossil fuels. Soon enough it will collapse, and there's not much ordinary people can do about it. Stoicism can at least help with accepting the inevitable.

cjohnson318 3y ago
Cheap fossil fuels AND an economic environment where developing countries have a median standard of living an order of magnitude lower than developed countries. If 80% of the world lived in roughly the same tax bracket, then a pair of wool socks would be like $100, not $10.

kieloo 3y ago

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand stoicism. The idea is not to be passive but to understand the difference between what is and isn’t in our control. One of Marcus Aurelius’ most famous quotes actually encourages action: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.” - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

bugglebeetle 3y ago
This is itself a meaningless appeal that can be used to justify any behavior, absent a concrete example or definition of the good.
- digging 3y ago
  Yes, obviously. It's meant to be consumed in context of knowing what good is. If you're lacking that context, don't use that single quote to guide your life choices.
- weatherlight 3y ago
  ..or you could read Meditations where Aurelius does explain what it is to be a good man.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    I’ve read it and found it to be sanctimonious apologia for the exercise of violent domination. Epictetus is more tolerable. The better example is the Buddhist tradition, where a figure of comparable authority to Aurelius abandoned power in pursuit of monasticism and universal respect for all life.

somenameforme 3y ago

That is not at all what Stoicism is about. I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. And that the greatest virtue in life is to be gained by living a life of ethics. There were metaphysical aspects to Stoicism as well, but I think few people adopt those now a days, and that's neither here nor there anyhow. A couple of Stoics involved in politics you may be interested in are Cato the Younger [1] and, of course, Marcus Aurelius. [2] Suffice to say that if our political class today was comprised of men with even a fraction of either of these men's character, the world would be an exponentially better place for everybody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

bugglebeetle 3y ago
> I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. Which is why it was upheld by people administering the slave empires, and rejected by those who ultimately opposed and overthrew them. It justifies existing hierarchies and domination as natural vs. arising from systems which can be fundamentally changed.
- weatherlight 3y ago
  I think people are getting hung up on the wrong things.. stoicism advocates for either actually changing/controlling the thing, or not worrying about it. More often than not, people are caught in the in-between where the spend absurd amount of time worrying about a specific problem but are unwilling/unable to take the action to resolve that issue. The other side of that is that sometimes things happen to you for which you have no control. An inoperable brain tumor, the weight of the death of a friend, your company going under, etc. in those moments, all you can ask for is to handle those situations with grace, virtue, and reason. And how you handle those situations (those uncontrollable ones) is completely on you. (Anecdotally, a friend of mine, who identifies as an adherent to stoic philosophy just organized his workplace and lead the unionization effort! He felt like he had the tools and power to help organize and make the changes in his work place! we told him that it was impossible/improbable and he's proved us all wrong.) Be the change you want to see in the world.

weatherlight 3y ago

> philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible. I think this is a misunderstanding. Stoicism isn't about passivity or resignation but rather about proactive engagement with the world, guided by virtue and rationality. If you have the means to change or shape the world, then do so...If you have the means to inspire people to change the world, then by god, do so.... There's plenty of examples throughout history of just that. for example, Cato the Younger, a Stoic, vehemently opposed Caesar believing him to be a a threat to the then fragile Roman Republic. He stood against Caesar's rise to power, even to the point of his tragic end, and became a bit of a martyr in that regard. Seneca the Younger, advised Emperor Nero (infamous madman) and tried to moderate Nero's rule with Stoic principles. Somewhat unsuccessfully, but he did try. A more modern example in George Washington, whose infamous demeanor was key in guiding the United States during its formative years, including the U.S. Revolutionary War and as the First President of that fledgling republic. Stoicism isn't a philosophy of resignation, Stoicism should be seen as a framework to navigate life's complexities with wisdom, reason, and virtue.